1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Miscellaneous Appeal No.412 of 2014 ------ 1. Md. Kadir Ansari @ Kadir Ali son of Late Subhan Miya 2. Fatima Bibi wife of Md. Kadir Ansari @ Kadir Ali Both resident of Village Telodih, Tola Korwadih, P.S. Handadih, P.S. Giridih (M), District Giridih (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Appellants Versus 1. Navin Singh son of Sri Shiv Mangal Singh resident of Village Bagra, P.S. Simaria, P.O. Simaria District Chatra at present at Mohala Matwari, P.S. Hazaribagh Town, P.O. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh, (Jharkhand) 2. Md. Jainulawadin son of Md. Jahir resident of Village Koldhari, P.S. Hazaribagh Town, P.O. Hazaribagh District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) 3. The New India Assurance Company Limited through Branch Manager Vidya Market Laxmi Talies Complex, 2nd Floor, Lepo Road, P.S. Hazaribagh Town, P.O. Hazaribagh District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) also through The New India Assurance Company Limited, Giridih Branch At & Post Giridh, P.S. Giridih (T), District Giridih (Jharkhand) 4. Maqesood Alam son of Late Md. Isha resident of Kawabandh, K.G. Ashram, G.T. Road, P.O. and P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad (Jharkhand) .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate Mr. Shiwam Lath, Advocate Mrs. D. Arati Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate Ms. Nanda Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent No.3 : Mr. Basav Chatterjee, Advocate For the Respondent No.4 : Mr. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate ------ Order No.22 / Dated : 29.01.2025 Claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that deceased (Late Alamgir Ansari) died at the age of about 22 years while he was going on Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle bearing Registration No.BR 17L 9292 on 15.03.2008 along with pillion rider- Daud Ansari from Village Telodih to Pachamba. As soon as they reached near Health Centre, Pachamba, a coal loaded truck bearing Registration No.BR-13D 9231 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed and collided in the rear portion of the motorcycle, due to which deceased (Late Almgir Ansari) died at the spot. The said truck was insured before the respondent No.3- The New India Assurance 2 Company Limited vide Policy No.540604/31/07/01/00001415 valid for the period from 03.07.2007 to midnight of 02/07.2008. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the deceased had an income of Rs.3,000/- per month while working as Salesman in a medicine shop and died unmarried at the age of about 22 years, but multiplier should have been taken as per the age of the deceased rather it has been taken on the basis of age of the claimants which ought to have been 18 in view of the judgment of passed by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Verus Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121. 4. It is further submitted that future prospect of the deceased has not been given nor the amount under the conventional head has been granted rightly in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 5. Further, Tribunal has computed the compensation by taking the age of the parents of the deceased since the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident. However, it has been held Haresh Shantilal Avlani & Anr. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.4029-4030 of 2024 that the age of the deceased should be taken for assessing appropriate multiplier. 6. Argument advance on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent No.3- The New India Assurance Company Limited that future prospect cannot be granted to a person who had no permanent job nor self-employed or having a fixed salary in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) at Paras 59.3 and 59.4, cannot be accepted. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company has further submitted that interest has been awarded @ 9% per annum which is contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma case (supra). 8. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was duly insured and therefore, the Insurance Company shall be liable to indemnify and pay the compensation amount. 9. Law is settled that in case of the death of a bachelor, multiplier will be as per the age of the deceased and not as according to that of the parents. It has been held in Munna Lal Jain v. Vipin Kumar Sharma, (2015) 6 SCC 347 wherein it has been held that the determining multiplier will be that of the deceased and not their parents. It was observed, 3 “ Whether the multiplier should depend on the age of the dependents or that of the deceased, has been hanging fire for some time; but that has been given a quietus by another three-Judge Bench decision in Reshma Kumari [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826 . It was held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased” 10. Under the circumstance the final compensation amount awarded is as under: - Annual Income Rs.3000/-x12 Rs.36000/- Annual dependency after deducting 50% on the living and personal expenses of the deceased Rs.18000/- Loss of dependency on taking a multiplier of 18 Rs.18000/- x 18 = Rs. 3,24,000/- Loss of future prospect @ 40% taking the age of the deceased to be 22 years of age Rs1,29,600/- Conventional head Rs 70,000 Total Rs.5,23,700/- Insurance Company is directed to make full and final payment of the compensation amount of Rs. Rs.5,23,700/- with interest @ 6 % from the date of filing of the claim application. Amount will be deposited within one month from the date of order before the learned Tribunal and the amount shall be disbursed by the Tribunal to the claimants as per the apportionment of share decided by it. Statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of appeal, be remitted to the Tribunal for being adjusted to the final compensation amount to be paid to the claimant. Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit